Christianity and masculinity

American Pride slips to new lows

Probably the most interesting chart from this article is this one. All credit goes to gallup for their chart.

My general assessment of this is as follows

• Democrats appear to be viewing the US from the victim perspective and when you do that everyone is exploited. I expect this to go down to 0-20% levels over time probably because there’s no end do that
• Independents after Trump’s presidency ends I expect to hover around 50% maybe fluctuating up and down 10%. They can see that that the US is becoming a Corporatocrasy and that it kinda sucks out here for a lot of people.
• Republicans are like your Boomer Evangelicals thinking everything is fine and hard work solves all things.

Objectively, the US is still one of the best countries to do anything with your life. However, many are starting to not see it that way. Either way with the rise of AI things are going to be shifting a lot in the near future.

In other news, Joshua Harris of I Kissed Dating Goodbye fame, his divorce, and his deconversion went on one of the Christian podcasts and says he was perhaps too hasty to totally de-convert but was right to perhaps deconstruct from Evangelicalism. A brief summary

• He admits he lacked wisdom when writing the book, and lamented that he didn’t pay attention to one of the off handed comments by one of the old pastors in passing that the other pastor said he wouldn’t write a book until he was at least 40.
• Trump’s first term accelerated his disillusionment from Christianity, but overcorrected by bringing black and white thinking into the picture, and that it would have been better to just deconstruct from Evangelicalism rather than Christianity as a whole
• Wants to move away from immediate answers and fear driven stances and supposedly walk with Jesus slowly and rebuild whatever that faith is supposed to look like

Having been through the beta-forming Evangelical-Boomer cog machine myself I can see where he is going, although he definitely could have handled it better. However, hopefully he is on the right track back to being a Christian but with eyes wide open to all of the secular and Boomer-led Churchianity.

Clergy and Laith in liberal mainline Protestant Churches

I believe either Aaron Renn or another Christian blogger mentioned this before, but this thoroughly explains why the mainline Protestant denominations have fallen to the culture. All charts are credit to this blog.

Not that being a Republican means being a true Christian, but we know for sure that most people who are Democrats almost certainly do not believe that marriage is one man and one woman. The erosion of marriage being between one man and one woman then leads to love being disambiguated into LGBT+ acceptance and further down the rabbit hole.

On the left side we can see that the Clergy is becoming more and more Liberal Democrat. Over 40 is 44% and younger than 40 is now 59%. Same with the number shifts for the Laity from 22% to 32%. As the leadership is there the congregation will go.

The mainline Protestants are a sinking ship because they have totally joined the secular culture and do not preach the real Jesus.

Finally, an interesting chart from Cartoonshateher on Men and Women and others, and if they prefer to identified as Dominate, Mix/Neutral, or Submissive. All credit to the blogger’s site for the image.

This is not news to anyone who has read this blog for a long time, but the summary is that on average

• Men are pretty much only Dominant or Mix
• Women are pretty much only Mix to submissive
• Gay men tend to have more feminized brains and are much more like women in distribution
• Lesbian women tend to have more masculined brains and are much more like men in distribution
• Bi/pan and non binary tend to skew toward one or the other depending.

The author also makes several comments that are not too surprising to us either

• “For a while now, my theory has been that a great proportion of men who extoll the virtues of submissive women don’t actually want a woman who is submissive in a way that requires them to show dominance or leadership, but rather a woman who submits to the idea of having sex with them, aka a “woman who likes them.” Better yet if she makes this as easy as possible, with zero concern about rejection or looking stupid. TLDR: men want hot women to willingly sleep with them and dispel any fears of being rejected or accused of sex-pestistry. What else is new?”
• “the more common expectation isn’t for women to be submissive, it’s for men to be dominant.”
• “And the biggest mismatch when it comes to straight men and women is the idea of pursuit and initiation. Nobody loves making the first move, but straight women hate it more than anyone.”

Whenever we would get comments from the Christian women they would always make excuses as to why Christian women could not do any sort of initiation. It’s always men must initiate, men must pursue, men must do this and that.

However, as we have seen from a vast array of anecdotal evidence and analysis of the Bible and such it’s the case that the most successful relationships form when the women have some to a lot of interest in the man, and they make some at least subtle moves like indicating interesting, hanging around him a lot, or even nudge him verbally or with actions in her direction to make her interest known so that he picks up on it and then initiates.

Women would do well to pick up on Honeycraft if they have men they are interested about in order to indicate her interest to him so he can officially initiate and act dominate toward her. Men need to get used to making the first move and looking for any indicators of interest if they want to go anywhere with relationships. But we all knew those things already. Just a confirmation.

From the paper pooling finances and relationship satisfaction. Found this one browsing through married data and definitely worth posting for the divorce risk reduction. 

It’s not unsurprising to find that all pooling > partial pooling > not pooling in the aspects of divorce because of the improved aspect of trust and unity. There appears to be about a 5% reduction for each of them all things being equal where:

• Fully pooled – 75-78%
• Partially pooled – 71-75%
• Fully separate – 66-72%

God’s plan of ‘one flesh’ marriage being one in all aspects is supported yet again by science. 

Jack briefly mentioned this in his latest post Church-wide, but I wanted to look at US demographics and generate a pyramid that would help identify what this actually looks like in real life for most men.

• CEOs – Women Business collective estimates  7.6-11% of fortune 500, fortune 1000, S&P500, Russell 3000, and Private companies have women CEOs. Russell 3000 composes 98% of all invest-able companies in the US while private companies using their data are about 3000 more which are big enough to count in their list. Let’s average those and say around 8%
•  Non-large company private CEOs – Zippia estimates approximately 42,356 CEOs with 31.5% of them being women. Women are more represented overall as CEOs, but just not in the top companies in the US. Another interesting tidbit is that they say 12% are LGBT which does play a role in the available men and women. SHRM (33%) and McKinsey (29%) confirm
• C-suite, VP, Senior management, and general management increases the percentage of women overall. The McKinsey data above suggest 32%, 35%, 39%, and 42-49% for all management positions. Pew suggests 46% of all managers. Due to the fact that the upper levels of management range from 32-39% and all women managers are in the 46% range, this suggests that low level management jobs need to balance this out at some rate above 46% likely closer to the 51% range according to the US bureau of labor statistics
• Women are 47% of all of the workforce according to the US chamber of commerce, which means that women being about 46% of the managers is about average. 
• Total US workforce according to Statista is about 171 million.
• Blue collar jobs are about 27-30% of the workforce and are about 17-20% female. Blue collar is traditionally manual labor type jobs.
• White collar jobs are about 70 million and make up 44% of the work force. with 52% being female 
• Not white or blue collar is estimated to be 18-20%, but it’s hard to find data given that the blue collar plus white collar jobs above only add up to about 74% of the population. That means there’s a missing 6-8% of jobs that fall somewhere. Supposedly the “other” categories are gray collar (skilled trades), pink collar (teaching, nursing, childcare, admin, social work), green collar (renewable energy), other (tech, data, etc.). 
• 47% of the work force is female according toe US DOL.

Now that we have some data to work with, what does this look like for a so-called pyramid of jobs in terms of hypergamy for women. 

• Top CEOs – 90-92% men at approximately 6000 positions
• Other CEOs – 68.5% men at approximately 42,000 positions
• C-suite, VP, and upper management – 68% men at approximately 310,000 positions
• Middle to lower management – 54% men at 20,000,000 positions approximately
• Regular white collar work – 45% men at approximately 50,000,000 positions

Disparities in total numbers are:

• Top CEOs – 48,00 more men than women
• Other CEOs – 15,540 more men than women
• C-suite etc – 116,000 more men than women
• Middle to lower – 1,600,000 more men than women
• Reg white collar – 4,531,940 more WOMEN than MEN
• Overall – 2,800,000 more women than men

Blue collar jobs are generally considered the lowest totem pole that women don’t want to marry these men because it’s “low class manual labor” type jobs. These are 80% men and approximately 30% of the work force or approximately:

• 51,000,000 blue collar jobs total of which about 40,800,000 men and 10,200,000 women.

Other collar work is tougher to decipher, but because we have enough data from the white collar and blue collar work we can deduce how many men and women are in these positions.

• 171 million workforce of which 47% is female is 80,370,000 women and 90,630,000 men.
• 70 million white collar jobs which are 48% male which is 33,600,000 men
• 51  million blue collar jobs which is 80% male which is 40,800,000 men
• 90.63 million – 33.6 – 40.8 is 16.23 million men in other collar work
• 171 workforce – 70 white – 51 million blue is about 50 million other collar work
• Men make up 32.5% of other collar work

What the pyramid actually looks like

In the past, blue collar men and blue collar women married at approximately 10% rate whereas it’s only 3.5% today. This means most of the 40 million blue collar men are pretty much at the bottom of the totem poll.

• Dregs of the totem poll – About 7 million men 25-54 are not working
• Bottom of the totem poll – 40.8 million men blue collar men
• Middle of the totem poll – 16.23 million men other collar men
• Top of the totem poll – 22.56 million regular white collar men
• Top tier totem poll – 10.8 million middle/lower management men
• Apex of the totem poll – 245,000 CEO, C-Suite, VP men

In percentages this is:

• Dregs of the totem poll – 7.1% unemployed or not working
• Bottom of the totem poll – 41.78% blue collar
• Middle of the totem poll – 16.6% other collar
• Top of the totem poll – 23.1% white collar regular
• Top tier totem poll – 11.1% white collar regular management
• Apex of the totem poll – .25% CEO, C-Suite, VP, etc.

Men don’t really care as much about womens’ careers in terms of selecting them as a mate. However, as we covered there is likely correlation to men being in proximity of women that likely leads them to marrying in similar socioeconomic tiers. 

• 22% of women are not in the work force or about 22 million. Best I could find about 69.8% of married women with children were in the workforce versus about 76.5% of unmarried mothers were in the work force. This likely means that 85-90% of women that were not married with no children were in the work force.
• 10.2 million are in blue collar jobs
• 33.75 million are in other collar jobs
• 27.1 million are in regular white collar jobs
• 9.2 million are in white collar regular management
• 113,030 are in CEO, C-Suite, VP, etc positions

About half of all women of working age are married now.

In percentages this is:

• 22% out of the workforce
• 9.9% in blue collar jobs
• 32.7 in other collar jobs
• 26.3% in regular white collar jobs
• 8.9% in white collar regular management
• .11% in CEO, C-Suite, VP, etc. positions

And I was able to figure out how to graph these.

And finally we have a look at how hypergamy would look at this job structure since women generally want to marry up similar or up in terms of education and careers. It’s pretty ugly so if someone figures out how to do a better one then go for it.

One interesting thing about the visualization is you can see that men are slightly more top heavy in the CEO and White collar management (light blue and orange). However, once you start getting into the regular white collar and other collar workers there is a huge disparity (green and yellow).

• In fact, this disparity in the regular white collar and other collar jobs is about 59% of the total women and 39.7 percent of the men which is about a 60% women and 40% men ratio.
• This disparity is almost the same as the education statistics with 58% of all people going to college are women, and 60% of all graduate degree enrollment are women.

Given the the estimate that 33% of US women may not marry (not just my prediction data, but other sources now like IFStudies), this chart is particularly good at showing it. It’s likely the top 50% of men and some portion of the blue collar men will marry. Probably at 50-60% range, and then those men who get divorced will be the ones remarrying the rest of the 7-17% of women to make up the full 67% of women married since men are more likely to marry after divorce than women.

Additionally, this chart goes with my previous assertion on the married men data a couple posts ago that if you want to be married you at the very least want to probably get a college degree or professional degree and get on a good salary track.

Do some blue collar work if you need to get by, but try not to get stuck there even if you have to go back to school or do a drastic career pivot. The trades are represented in other collar, so that can work as well. However, you will have a generally better selection pool of women if you have white collar and professional degrees and job as they tend to carry more prestige.

I would not be surprised to see some form of this analysis eventually going mainstream as well.

4 million women have reached age 40-50 without being married.

• Never married – black > hispanic > white > asian
• Childless – white > black > asian > hispanic

These are not too much of a surprise. The cultures with women that tend to be more masculine are getting married less, though white people even though marrying more are having less kids.

• Probability Married – grad > bachelors > some college/associates > high school > less
• Childless – grad > bachelors > high school > some college/associates > less

Also not too much of a surprise here. More likely to get married with higher education which is correlated to higher incomes. However, the ones who don’t get married are more likely to be childless probably from pricing themselves out of the market from their own hypergamy.

There seems to be a larger prevalence of actually criticizing women in power or anti-male sentiment coming out recently. Some of these were mentioned on various sites or newletters (e.g. Aaron Renn) but I’ve run across some others off social media and other places.

• Female elephant in the room – will we continue to pretend female power does not lead to civilizational disaster
• It’s time to retire toxic masculinity 
• The Bias we pretend doesn’t hurt boys
• Male students show more tolerance for political enemies than females show for their own allies

Why society offers less sympathy when men fall behind

The interesting thing about the study associated with this article is that when men “fall behind” it’s more seen as a lack of effort whereas when women fall behind it’s usually interpreted into some other means such as “women still face wage gaps, underrepresentation in leadership, and cultural stereotypes that constrain opportunities.”

Hence, people are less likely to help struggling men than struggling men.

Meet cute surveys on men and women

Men and women are still looking for it.

• For men being approached – bar/party > coffee shops > social clubs/run > networking > bookstore library > park/beach > grocery store
• 92% of men were open to being approached by someone they’re into and 75& would feel flattered even if not mutual
• Women generally don’t like being approached in gym/fitness > work > transit commute > nowhere is off limits
• Only 40% of men are now “somewhat likely” or “very likely” to approach women these days, whereas most women won’t approach men even if they’re interested.

Generally, though I’d suspect women are not really approaching men unless you’re very tall or attractive. Example of someone women approach all the time. Men unfortunately just have to take the risk.

Women strongly rely on eye contact and a man smiling at them, so working on these and waiting for them to smile at you if they’re interested or reading other non-verbal signs are still your best bet.

A war breaks out along the lines of mostly men vs mostly women after a man asks if he’s overreacting when his girlfriend say “I’ve had my fun, it’s time for me to settle down”.

Predictably, men and women think about this topic very differently usually. Men negatively and women positively. 

Aaron Renn posted Crimieux’s article looking at if the marriage premium is true. The marriage premium shows that generally married men earn much more than their single counterparts.

All charts attributed to his site.

There’s more charts, but in general this one seems to encapsulate it the best.

Basically, it’s not that married men earn more because they are married, but men that are successful are getting married more often and that success continues several years pre-marriage into several years post-marriage. Unsurprisingly, reduction or loss of income is correlated with divorce as well.

Taking it a step further, it’s likely the men developing the key attributes of manliness also are relate to job success — being assertive, confident, competent, and such that get the promoted and earning raises — are the key attributes that also make them successful with women as well. The money is more or less a side effect of the development into a confident and successful man, and obviously helps in the dating game and acquiring relevant marriage signalling attributes like a house as well.

I’ve been sitting on a few IFStudies articles related to this which is a good time to pull them out. One of those articles posits that High status (and earning) men are attracted to ambitious women contrary to the popular notion that men are turned off by ambitious women. All charts are credit to IFStudies link above.

They draw this conclusion through several charts.

Unfortunately, this is a classic correlation is not causation fallacy when interpreting the data.

• The main thing that most men tend to communicate is that ambition in women is not attractive and not that it’s a turn off.
• The main turn off is when high earning women are trying to take the role of the man in the relationship by being adversarial.

Aside from the growing “online” segment, the majority of people still meet their spouse from work, friends and family. This means that men who are at the lucrative jobs are more likely to meet other women with lucrative jobs based on the fact that they either work with them or near them, and their friend groups are likely to be in the same socioeconomic class which means if they meet through friends or family they will have similar higher earning jobs.

Likewise, many of my friends who did go to graduate school or professional schools either met their spouses in college, in the post-college schooling, or from friends and family or colleagues out of those schools once they started to work. 

It’s unlikely that a high earning man is going to go to a dive bar in the poor part of town trying to meet women. Even if he does somehow meet a woman in a bar, it’s likely going to be an upscale bar because he has the resources to be there and it’s likely going to be more frequented by upscale women as well. 

It’s only in the Disney stories and RomComs that you see the prince and the peasant or rich man marring the poor woman most of the time. 

Another IFStudes blog looked at the fact that women are still marrying up. 

This is not shocking given the past two articles we went over and confirms what I hypothesized on the fact that the higher income men tend to marry the women in proximity to them — work, same social and socioeconomic group, friends, and family. 

If young women want to be married, the Mrs degree is coming back basically. It’s also the high earners that are overwhelmingly married to stay-at-home moms because one income can support that unlike in many areas of the country now. 

This is echoed in another IFStudies piece on high earning women are more likely to marry.

As we all knew as well women are more likely to be married younger, but men are more likely to be married older. Men married older is skewed by the male divorcees remarrying because they are more attractive to women than female divorcees. 

In general, for both men and women the plan is pretty clear. 

Men succeeding at work tends to likely develop the masculine traits and money needed to support a family at the same time. For women if they want to marry such a man they need to put themselves into proximity to these men. Or at the very least, have a high earning job even if it doesn’t require college or graduate school or a professional degree (trades) and put yourself in proximity to good women. 

Obviously, Christian is a must for both, but this is likely the way you want to go if you want to have the most successful model which I covered in the other article which is a higher earning man with a stay at home wife. 

Jack has a great post about exposing demanding and negotiative mentality in women.

When a wife is saying, “[Husband] should do X, Y, Z”, then she is being demanding. I’ve covered how to handle demands before. The standard way for a man to deal with demands from women is to be more demanding of her than she is of you.

But when a wife is saying that “[Husband] should do X, Y, Z, … BECAUSE [Wife] does A, B, C”, then she is being negotiative or transactional. She’s also comparing her opinion of you to her view of herself.

The standard way of handling demands by being more demanding may not work in this case. If she is a lazy or passive wife, then she might fold. But if she is the type of person who is always pushing for excellence and improvement (which a lot of women do, including good women), then it turns into brinkmanship and one-up-manship that puts ever more pressure on the man because it is essentially a competition of who can outdo the other. Although this dynamic might be beneficial for personal improvement, a man has to watch that it never crosses the line into a competition of ‘Equals’ as women would like to think that it is.

There is a very easy way to put the brakes on the showmanship, if deemed necessary.

This is a good way to conceptualize the matter.

However, the most effective way I’ve found when helping men over the years is to defuse demands is with the the pressure flip.

• Wife: Demands you do X, Y, and Z
• Husband: (in a playful tone) “You forgot to say pleaseee…”

The one phrase instantly communicates several things to the wife which are:

• She’s acting like a brat demanding things and trying to get her way
• Typically, the show of manners is demanded by parents to children or teachers to students which automatically flips the scenario from her demanding something of you (her in authoritative position) to you demanding something of her (you in the authoritative position).
• It’s just good manners, so there’s no way for her to come back on it without looking a jerk.
• The playful manner means it’s not that serious, so it shouldn’t escalate into a full blown argument unless she is too far gone into the rebellious and disrespectful zone where she is thinking about divorce. If the situation is that serious where the wife continues to argue about it, typically the best way to defuse again is to use the same tactics that the women use against men: tone policing. Start policing her tone for being rude and disrespectful.

Side note – tone policing is one of the ways wives, feminists, and left uses to nullify any argument and make men and husbands look like the bad guy. It can be reversed on them and they typically look shocked or confused when it happens because it rarely does happen to them.

The problem beyond this though is if the relationship has slipped into such a position, so this is not the only things men should be doing to act as the leader. But this is usually a good way to defuse the situation and reverse it in the short term.

I’ve seen so many different articles come across my plate over the past few weeks.

I’m no tennis fan, but apparently Danielle Collins, age 31, is a fairly successful woman’s tennis player (over 10 Million in career earnings) is on the prowl to be a trad wife. Some people found her dating profile and it went viral

Currently a professional tennis player, but kind of aspiring to be a rad wife. Straight up. Already had my boss babe era. Just wanting to raise my chickens. do home projects, make freshly baked sourdough, be a stay at home dog mom, and hopefully pop out some babies soon. If you’re going to lie about your height just leave me the fuck alone. This is a no short kings zone.

She then added in a different interview

‘I’ll tell you what … if anyone has the balls to slide into my DM like this just make sure to attach your most recent bank statement while you’re at it,’ she wrote.

One man even sent her his bank account, showing it had millions in it.

Collins then said on her Instagram: ‘Modern love … okay I’m getting off the internet now.’

Apparently she is still in her boss babe era, and almost certainly won’t be a good wife with that amount of entitlement. Buyers beware.

Spool of wire guy.

Had his spool of wire for 40 years and used it for a lot of different things. Wife is basically clueless as to why he’s so emotional about it and man is visibly disappointed. And women are supposedly the more empathetic sex.

Turns out that’s definitely not the case when men are more emotional, as we have covered many times on this blog.

Richard Reeves puts out advice on how to be a man women actually want (paywalled)

I saw this before Aaron Renn mentioned him a couple weeks ago, but he has stuff out about his new book and such.

Answering these questions has become Richard Reeves’s overarching task. Two years ago, the British-born scholar founded the American Institute for Boys and Men. He also wrote the book that crystallized America’s growing anxiety about men. “Of Boys and Men,” published in 2022, thrust the crisis of modern masculinity into the mainstream, forcing politicians to confront an uncomfortable reality: Men are falling behind women on everything from college enrollment to employment rates to basic life satisfaction. They’re also struggling to find love and get married, as I discussed in my last column.

But Reeves isn’t some men’s rights advocate. He’s not pining for a mythical golden age when men got what they wanted with minimal effort. Instead, he’s asking harder questions about identity, purpose and what it means to build a life worth living.

Women might not need men anymore, but they still want men. Men, he believes, are more than capable of rising to the occasion. “Find someone who will do and marry them,” Reeves tells me bluntly. When I suggest this sounds like settling, he pushes back: “It’s less about picking the perfect wife and more about being a good husband.”

You can basically tell where this is going without reading the rest. To paraphrase,

“Women’s progress is only good and there are no downsides. Men need to “man up” and adapt to this new world if they want to get married.”

But there’s obviously crickets when the modern man does this and the woman is still unhappy and divorces him.

Do not follow this nonsense social script. Follow Christ and only date Christian women who want to follow their man and submit to him.

Finally, making the rounds is Vogue’s Is Having a boyfriend embarassing now? 

You can read it for yourself, but the gist of it is that women are feeling embarrassed by posting boyfriends on social media for a variety of reasons such as they don’t want to alienate their friends or followers who don’t have any,  they’re embarrassed by the break ups in the end, discussing boyfriends are lame or boring, and other nonsensical stuff like this.

Basically, they’re so focused on social media’s perception of them that it is negatively affecting their own relationships and self perception. Anyone with a brain could see this one coming seeing as how social media is often more destructive for women than it is with men.

Be wary out there for the land mines. Only date women who will respect you as a man.

I’ve been trying to figure out a term to use for this, but it’s the common one for the headship-submission dynamic within marriage.

No one, not even the most ardent feminist, would say that a teacher has more value (or is less equal) than a student. It’s assumed that the role of teacher is there to guide the student, just as Jesus did with his disciples. However, we still understand that there is a hierarchical dynamic between them where one is in authority over the other and responsible for their needs. They have the authority to make decisions.

The same is true of many other common positions society wide like bosses and employees, professions and secretaries, and others.

Yet, interestingly there is value blindness when talking about Biblical husband and wives. Even many of the so-called believers in headship and submission like the complementarians need to always pay lip service to the fact that husbands and wives are different but equal in value even though they do not necessarily do it practically.

Feminists have done a wonderful job brainwashing both men and women into believing power = value and maleness = value. Ironically, by doing this they have implicitly relegated femininity to a second class role.

Luke 22:25 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.

To clarify the point, the feminists have convinced Christian men but especially Christian women that Gentile authority is the default over Godly authority even to Christians!

Their envious goal is to want to be in power or want to be like men rather than women. Hence, why women believe that they are worth less if they aren’t striving to at the very least be equal or in power in any relationship or take on the male roles and traits though excluding much of the responsibility.

Thus, the dynamic is that anytime anyone needs to address the role of husband if they have to address the so-called elephant in the room of “equality” they are already falling prey to feminist intent.

This is the same as the submission dynamic of letting him lead:

• Rebellion or contentious to a husband
• Letting him lead — this still maintains that the wife is the arbiter of a husband’s leading
• Following his lead

To wrap up, I think it’s important to keep digging to the root of the language and meaning because some of these things continue to slip through the cracks. We’ve identified much of Biblical attraction and arousal and how it conflicts with modern culture, but maybe we haven’t investigated the why as deeply and how it alters our perception even through just the simple way we address points and the language we use.

Been meaning to write about this IFStudies post for a while since I think they overlooked some analysis. All credit for the images are from IFStudies link.

Table: Occupational Prestige by Four Categories

• Low Prestige 0–35 Less prestigious jobs (e.g., janitors, food service workers, cashiers)
• Lower-Middle Prestige 36-49 Routine or entry-level occupations (e.g., truck drivers, secretaries, retail sales)
• Upper-Middle Prestige 50–64 Skilled or semi-professional roles (e.g., police officers, K–12 teachers, technicians)
• High Prestige 65–80 High-status professions (e.g., physicians, lawyers, college professors, executives)

The title is interesting because it leaves out some context that is highly important.

The general trends among men cheating is that they had sex with the other woman but still love their wife. However, the general trend among wives cheating is that they had already decided she didn’t love him and checked out the marriage already. This is clearly shown by wives asking her cheating husband “do you love her?” versus husbands asking their cheating wife “did you have sex with him?” Each sex wants to verify the reason differently because love vs sex. 

The reason why this is important is because women in the upper-middle to highly prestigious jobs might not necessarily cheat but they will just divorce you if they’re unhappy because they can generally provide for themselves better. So you don’t necessarily get the cheating while in the relationship, but they divorce and instantly have a new man they were emotionally involved with during the marriage. 

This makes men with prestigious jobs look worse than the woman, though I would suspect it would even out if they could account for women immediately ending up in a relationship post-divorce. 

You’d expect women with low and lower-middle occupational prestige to cheat more just because they want to continue to rely on their man for economic support — the woman food service workers, cashiers, secretaries, retail sales. Indeed, this is true.

Additionally, you’d expect the men with high prestige to cheat more because they have the economic capability to arrange liaisons better and the increased power and status from their job which women are attracted to. This is true as well.

It appears to be now true that women are out cheating men overall (11% vs 14%)which isn’t that surprising to most of us here, and this does not take into account the fact that more women are divorcing to potentially be with their liaisons that are not counted in actual cheating. Most people you would ask in the wild would think men are always the ones cheating more though. 

A lot of you hated the fact that I said that if you want someone who divorces the least you still want a college educated woman, and this also appears to be true if you don’t want a woman to cheat. The college educated women while they have a higher divorce percentage, this is misleading because the non-college educated women have more total amount of divorces are less overall so there is a lower total amount of divorces of college educated women. 

This look at the data is also important because it clarifies what you would want through multiple lines of evidence. What is going to be the most successful chance to eliminate cheating?

• College educated woman who wants to be a homemaker (not just is a homemaker or doesn’t work)
• Religious service attendance is an obvious qualifier as well, though not guaranteed that said woman is a Christian. If you have a true Christian it should be less. 
• Is a virgin as you know from past posts

Basically, bring back the Mrs degree and a Christian virgin woman who is actively preparing to be a homemaker. 

The ideal taking into account hypergamy would be mainly what we all have surmised from the get-go. 

• Christian Husband with a high prestige job (e.g., physicians, lawyers, college professors, executives) or at the very least upper-middle job. 
• Christian wife with a college degree job who wants to be a wife and mother and homemaker

The best you can glue a husband and wife together via attraction and then conform it to Biblical roles and responsibilities is going to have the most success. 

Commenter Info posted a link in one of Jack’s most recent posts about a video that talked about the occult origins of modern dating which was Part 1 of the series. I actually went down the whole rabbit hole through the full 4 part series.

I would estimate it’s about 95-98% accurate in terms of understanding how we got into this mess. The first part is about some origins, though I don’t think dating itself is necessarily evil. Parts 2 goes through the Boomers and GenX to the rise of feminism and eventually he goes into the development of the red pill and manosphere in Part 3 and 4 and how many parts of it have gone mainstream.

If you have time, the thing is worth a watch, and it’s something I would recommend to show men at Church who are interested in why the dating and marriage markets have collapsed. 

There are some inaccuracies in terms of dates which likely means he wasn’t intimately present with the rise of the early red pill, manosphere, and the Christian side of it. However, in terms of a deep history dive it’s very well done.

He’s said a lot of what we’ve said here in terms of the feminization of the Church and the lack of ability to criticize women and their sins, expectations, and inability of men to lead in marriage, and how most marriages whether egalitarian or complementarian have the underlying dynamic of the wife in power and the husband has only responsibility.